1Perry
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 7,624
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If you aren't even going to read your own links...........
How so?........
I can't believe you wrote that.
If the protesters are making a mess, ****ing write a goddamned law against making a mess and then charge the responsible individuals with a ****ing crime. Foisting responsibility for the actions of a few onto an informally gathered group says that informal groups are not allowed to assemble if anyone ever has the means and the motive to run a false flag operation. That's a ****ing death blow to the freedom of assembly.
Trivializing the Constitution is EXACTLY what you are doing.
If you aren't even going to read your own links...........
The article notes that even that figure is suspect.
That aside it's the big picture. I note over and over that our rights are not free.
Would you have made the Little Rock Nine pay for the added law enforcement costs?
Also, this huge, I'll use lie here since it's documented as one, this huge lie as far as costs is nothing more than an effort on the part of government to squash speech and protest they do not like.
So, this is one area everyone should be glad that we can pay the costs.
What would be suspect about the second figure? I can believe that there were $300K plus in costs associated with the union tantrum.
Neither is a Big Mac at Mickey D's, but I don't expect you to buy one for me.
Are you really comparing Public sector Union temper tantrums to the civil rights struggle of the 60's? lol Come on man.....Not even close.
What do you suppose that the costs were in WI?
But we can't afford costs like this. we are broke.
j-mac
I'm just quoting the article that was greatfully posted for us. But let me give a possibility. A police officer gets paid $200 a day. Since he was used that day for traffic control his wages get added in even though he would have been paid that day anyway.
I've somehow overlooked the Big Mac amendment.
You DO NOT get to pick and choose what is valid and what is not valid protest.
You really need to take a class on the Constitution.
Not only do we have a right to protest what we feel is wrong we also have equal protection.
If you are not going to charge one group for the costs of protecting their rights you can not charge another group.
I have no idea as they are irrelevant to me.
We are even more broke when we decide that we can not defend our Constitutional rights.
This isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what the government is still providing Wall Street.
Well, I think you'd have to show that to be the case if you are going to claim that the city is trying to charge the protest with the entire cost of policing the city on those days.
Well, you overlook much it seems when it comes to this debate. Like law's.
Who said I do? But, it is Bull **** to compare apples and oranges like you tried.
Well, I don't think ad hom's get us anywhere do they?
Sure, go ahead. Just make sure you have the proper permits, and show a little respect for the land you are to hold your protest on. That's all.
Then the inverse should also be true...right?
Hmmm...then why did you bring it up?
You don't have a right to disrupt, destroy, riot, rape, drug, rob, etc...There are laws.
Careful, you may be going over the top with your hyperbole...I don't, and I don't think anyone is in favor of Obama's brand of cronyism, and corruption.
j-mac
Well, I do not have to actually prove anything but all the same, I didn't say the entire cost to the city for the day.
I believe I have covered that. I'm not the one trying to compare buying your lunch to protecting ones Constitutional rights.
You did when you tried to say that what one group did concerning their rights was valid while anothers wasn't just because you disagree with them.
Ad hom? I was very serious.
No, you didn't. but you did try and make the point through demonstration that a cop working for the day on traffic control, that would be working anyway was being falsely added to the tab. I say that is exactly what you were trying to say, and you now come up with the old, 'I didn't say that' gambit. Whatever dude.
My point was that your rights, stop when they interfere with my rights. But I think you know that.
Again who said that? My point Perry, was that your comparison of spoiled, children protesting because they signed a loan agreement, then proceeded to take classes designed to make them qualified for nothing, and now don't want to pay, is equal to the civil rights movement is so laughable that it really doesn't deserve the time dedicated to a response. But I did so anyway to be gracious.
Then it is a good thing for you that you're on a message board, instead of in person eh? Anyway, I'll stop there. Your dishonesty, and over the top hyperbole, are really not productive. If you want to now, as you probably will declare some sort of victory, we can all yell yipee, and go make some lunch.....Congrats dude, I'll look for your achievement on the news tonight.....[/sarcasm]
The Tea Parties obtained the needed permits, did their thing peacefully, and then left the grounds in most cases in better shape than before they were there.
A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country.”
Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”
The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.
No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.
The TP had corporate backers--logistics, transport, and media promotion were all funded by corps and Fox News. The Occupy events are a symptoms of the great recession, dysfunctional federal and state governments, and 3 decades of wealth being transferred upward from the working class to the ruling class. As people become aware of the 'trickle-down' lie, they get angry and frustrated. You might be inclined to join them if you understood the truth.
But your comparison is meaningless as the TP is a well-funded and TRAINED corporate backed attempt to win support for candidates that support their anti-reg, anti-union agenda.
LINK
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
Billionaires duping middle class GOPs in to joining a 4-year anti-Obama, anti-regulation, anti-union campaign.
TPs in Wisconsin have caught on. Hopefully the rest of the country will too, before November.
The TP had corporate backers--logistics, transport, and media promotion were all funded by corps and Fox News. The Occupy events are a symptoms of the great recession, dysfunctional federal and state governments, and 3 decades of wealth being transferred upward from the working class to the ruling class. As people become aware of the 'trickle-down' lie, they get angry and frustrated. You might be inclined to join them if you understood the truth.
But your comparison is meaningless as the TP is a well-funded and TRAINED corporate backed attempt to win support for candidates that support their anti-reg, anti-union agenda.
LINK
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
Billionaires duping middle class GOPs in to joining a 4-year anti-Obama, anti-regulation, anti-union campaign.
TPs in Wisconsin have caught on. Hopefully the rest of the country will too, before November.
The TP had corporate backers--logistics, transport, and media promotion were all funded by corps and Fox News. The Occupy events are a symptoms of the great recession, dysfunctional federal and state governments, and 3 decades of wealth being transferred upward from the working class to the ruling class. As people become aware of the 'trickle-down' lie, they get angry and frustrated. You might be inclined to join them if you understood the truth.
But your comparison is meaningless as the TP is a well-funded and TRAINED corporate backed attempt to win support for candidates that support their anti-reg, anti-union agenda.
LINK
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
Billionaires duping middle class GOPs in to joining a 4-year anti-Obama, anti-regulation, anti-union campaign.
TPs in Wisconsin have caught on. Hopefully the rest of the country will too, before November.
Damaging public spaces,turning areas into crime scenes,harassing businesses and schoolkids and many other things are the opposite of peaceful.
Blocking police,trying to prevent police from leaving,resisting arrest and preventing them from doing their job is not peaceful.
The TP had corporate backers--logistics, transport, and media promotion were all funded by corps and Fox News. The Occupy events are a symptoms of the great recession, dysfunctional federal and state governments, and 3 decades of wealth being transferred upward from the working class to the ruling class. As people become aware of the 'trickle-down' lie, they get angry and frustrated. You might be inclined to join them if you understood the truth.
But your comparison is meaningless as the TP is a well-funded and TRAINED corporate backed attempt to win support for candidates that support their anti-reg, anti-union agenda.
LINK
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
Billionaires duping middle class GOPs in to joining a 4-year anti-Obama, anti-regulation, anti-union campaign.
TPs in Wisconsin have caught on. Hopefully the rest of the country will too, before November.
They were not prevented from doing thier "job" (quotes put there intentionally). That is quite a stupid remark to make considering that everyone did absolutely nothing physical while they pepper sprayed those students and they were allowed to take the tents down. And you can resist police peacefully as these particular demonstrators showed even your own video shows a cop saying "any resistence either passive or...". The way you tell it there is no such thing as "passive" resistance. (btw~passive resistance is just another word for peaceful resistance)
As far as the police being blocked. The only way that they were blocked is by a passive group which did nothing to harm them. It may be against the law, but the way in which it was done was peaceful. Whether you want to admit it or not.
Blocking police,trying to prevent police from leaving,resisting arrest and preventing them from doing their job is not peaceful.
Sorry, but there is nothing "peaceful" about blocking a cop. It is a provocative act, which can only escalate.
"Peaceful" is to get the **** out of the way when told to move.
Sorry, but there is nothing "peaceful" about blocking a cop. It is a provocative act, which can only escalate.
"Peaceful" is to get the **** out of the way when told to move.
Sorry, but there is nothing "peaceful" about blocking a cop. It is a provocative act, which can only escalate.
"Peaceful" is to get the **** out of the way when told to move.
You say that they cost money. I say that our freedoms do not come without a price.
Do you know what "civil disobediance" is? Do you know what "passive resistance" means? Put the two together and you have what was done at UC Davis. And both are a part of protesting. Even MLK and Ghandi did these things.
Call it "civil". Call it "passive". Neither is "peaceful". which is what I addressed. When a cop tells you to move, and you do not, it is no longer peaceful, as some force now must be applied to move you.
Call it "civil". Call it "passive". Neither is "peaceful". which is what I addressed. When a cop tells you to move, and you do not, it is no longer peaceful, as some force now must be applied to move you.
That's a scary definition of not being peaceful
That's a rather strange definition of "non-peaceful."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?